Minhast/Dialectology - Revision history

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2024-06-07T17:11:19Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 7 June 2024
Line 122:		Line 122:
	*Palatization Test is inconclusive due to dialectal mixing with their Dog, Osprey, and Egret Speaker neighbors: some Gull Speaker words fail the test, while others pass		*Palatization Test is inconclusive due to dialectal mixing with their Dog, Osprey, and Egret Speaker neighbors: some Gull Speaker words fail the test, while others pass

	*''Asr̥-Z''-type sandhi: word-final /sr̥/ mutates to /z/, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of previous vowel, e.g. ''~~kiyuntāz~~'' "seaweed", c.f. Salmon Speaker ''kiyuntasr''		*''Asr̥-Z''-type sandhi: word-final /sr̥/ mutates to /z/, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of previous vowel, e.g. ''kuyuntāz'' "seaweed", c.f. Salmon Speaker ''kiyuntasr''

	*Wholesale replacement of /f/ with /x/, e.g. ''puħtanaxt'' vs Common ''puħtanaft'' "the one standing"		*Wholesale replacement of /f/ with /x/, e.g. ''puħtanaxt'' vs Common ''puħtanaft'' "the one standing"

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2023-07-08T19:59:23Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 8 July 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:
	\| Umbarak, Hayreb, Nanampuyyi, Wattare, Saxtam, Gannasia, Rummak , Iyyay, Hattūmi, Nu'ay, and Xirrim Prefectures; <br/>		\| Umbarak, Hayreb, Nanampuyyi, Wattare, Saxtam, Gannasia, Rummak , Iyyay, Hattūmi, Nu'ay, and Xirrim Prefectures; <br/>
	Āš-min-Gāl, Ankussūr, Huruk, Nammadīn, Kered, and Kattek (NW Quadrant of NCR, approx 60%)		Āš-min-Gāl, Ankussūr, Huruk, Nammadīn, Kered, and Kattek (NW Quadrant of NCR, approx 60%)
	\|		\|
			*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un''

	*Fossilized affix ''-ūy'' realized as ''-uyyi''		*Fossilized affix ''-ūy'' realized as ''-uyyi''

Line 49:		Line 51:
	Iyyūmi (Salmon Speaker suburb in NCR, approx 80%)		Iyyūmi (Salmon Speaker suburb in NCR, approx 80%)
	\|		\|
			*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un''

	*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved		*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved

Line 61:		Line 65:
	! Hašlua min Kirmast "Wolf Speaker"		! Hašlua min Kirmast "Wolf Speaker"
	\| North Central, and Southern Kilmay Rī Mountains, Ešked, Tayyagur, Raqwar, Tabuk Prefectures; Ehar Township		\| North Central, and Southern Kilmay Rī Mountains, Ešked, Tayyagur, Raqwar, Tabuk Prefectures; Ehar Township
	\|		\|
			*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un''

	*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved		*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2023-02-11T20:32:41Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 11 February 2023
Line 38:		Line 38:
	*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone		*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone

	*Locative noun formed using Locative Applicative ''-naħk-'' + verb root ~~<br/>~~(+ Nominalizer ''-naft'')		*Locative noun formed using Locative Applicative ''-naħk-'' + verb root (+ Nominalizer ''-naft'')

	*Pervasive use of the Interrogative-Polarity discourse particle ''ni/nī''		*Pervasive use of the Interrogative-Polarity discourse particle ''ni/nī''
Line 68:		Line 68:
	*Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /r/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''.		*Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /r/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''.

	*~~Alternative locative~~ noun formed using verb root + IN ''-~~tappe-~~'', e.g. ''~~gubbattappe~~'' "battlefield"		*Locative noun formed using verb root + ''-anki'' suffix, e.g. ''gubbatanki'' "battlefield"

	*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone		*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2022-10-25T14:22:33Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 25 October 2022
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/		*Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/

	*Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /~~(V)~~r~~(V)~~/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''.		*Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /r/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''.

	*Alternative locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"		*Alternative locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2022-10-25T14:16:43Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 25 October 2022
Line 55:		Line 55:
	*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone		*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone

	*~~Locative~~ noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"		*Alternative locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"

	*Preponderance of fossilized suffix ''-bāt'' and allomorphs ''-mbāt'', ''-umbāt''		*Preponderance of fossilized suffix ''-bāt'' and allomorphs ''-mbāt'', ''-umbāt''
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/		*Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/

	*Phonemes /q, χ/ ~~appear in words~~ of Seal Speaker ~~origin~~, ~~particularly in the northwestern portion of the ''karak'', now spreading apparently as~~ a sound shift ~~in words of Common and Salmonic origin, e.g.~~ /~~qaraq~~/, c.f. Common /karak/ "tribal territory"		*Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /(V)r(V)/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''.

	*~~Locative~~ noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"		*Alternative locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"

	*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone		*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone

Anyar: /* Criticisms */

2022-08-05T15:07:55Z

Criticisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 5 August 2022
Line 323:		Line 323:
	Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects.		Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects.

	The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems, and they are several. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. ~~Moreover,~~ the ''-we'' form ~~and~~ other features point towards a relationship with the Elk and Seal Speakers, which are grouped with the Upper Minhast dialects, yet the Gull Speakers do not share a contiguous border with them, so dialectal mixing has been ruled out at this point. The Palatization Test is also inconclusive, primarily due to dialect mixing with their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors, which belong to the northern dialects, and their Osprey Speaker and Egret Speaker neighbors, which belong to the southern dialects. Perhaps the most jarring feature of the Gull Speaker dialect is the placement of its verbal [[Minhast#Preverb_2_Locational_Affixes \| deictic affixes]], which appear after the root in the Terminatives slot. Only the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects, as well as Classical Minhast, share this feature, whereas the rest of the Minhast dialects place the deictic affixes in the Preverb 2 slot. But using this feature to argue for an affiliation with Upper Minhast is problematic, as the forms of the Gull Speaker affixes are different from the aforementioned dialects.		The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems, and they are several. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. Along with the ''-we'' form, other features point towards a relationship with the Elk and Seal Speakers, which are grouped with the Upper Minhast dialects, yet the Gull Speakers do not share a contiguous border with them, so dialectal mixing has been ruled out at this point. The Palatization Test is also inconclusive, primarily due to dialect mixing with their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors, which belong to the northern dialects, and their Osprey Speaker and Egret Speaker neighbors, which belong to the southern dialects. Perhaps the most jarring feature of the Gull Speaker dialect is the placement of its verbal [[Minhast#Preverb_2_Locational_Affixes \| deictic affixes]], which appear after the root in the Terminatives slot. Only the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects, as well as Classical Minhast, share this feature, whereas the rest of the Minhast dialects place the deictic affixes in the Preverb 2 slot. But using this feature to argue for an affiliation with Upper Minhast is problematic, as the forms of the Gull Speaker affixes are different from the aforementioned dialects.

	Additionally, the distinctive City Speaker dialect remains outside the Upper and Lower branch classification system. The language is a koine that developed from the Horse Speaker, Stone Speaker, and Gull Speaker dialects, with borrowings from Western sources. The dialect has also developed unique innovations of its own. This dialect thus provides yet another argument against the traditional two-branch dialectal division.		Additionally, the distinctive City Speaker dialect remains outside the Upper and Lower branch classification system. The language is a koine that developed from the Horse Speaker, Stone Speaker, and Gull Speaker dialects, with borrowings from Western sources. The dialect has also developed unique innovations of its own. This dialect thus provides yet another argument against the traditional two-branch dialectal division.

Anyar: /* Intelligibility */

2022-03-20T12:57:38Z

Intelligibility

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 20 March 2022
Line 277:		Line 277:
	* The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik.		* The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik.
	* The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it.		* The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it.
	* Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect. However, monolingual Dog Speakers consider the national language difficult to understand, because over half of its lexicon is drawn from Lower Minhast sources, and some phonological rules which govern the allomorphs of certain affixes and clitics, such as the ergative ''=de'', can differ significantly between the two dialects.		* Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect<ref>More specifically, the variety as spoken in Tagna Prefecture, as can be seen from the ''-m-'' → ''-n-'' morphophonemic alternation when the pronominal affix combines with the ergative/genitive clitic, which differs from most Dog Speaker dialects.</ref>. However, monolingual Dog Speakers consider the national language difficult to understand, because over half of its lexicon is drawn from Lower Minhast sources, and some phonological rules which govern the allomorphs of certain affixes and clitics, such as the ergative ''=de'', can differ significantly between the two dialects.
	* For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. ~~Gender~~ discordance ~~in all Minhast dialects~~ is common.		* For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. Intra-dialectal gender discordance is common.
	* The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied.		* The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied.
	* The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model\| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today.		* The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model\| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today.

Anyar at 02:28, 10 February 2022

2022-02-10T02:28:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 10 February 2022
Line 334:		Line 334:

	=== The Tashunka Model ===		=== The Tashunka Model ===
	In his seminal work, ''Minhast: A Diachronic and Theoretical Study of a North Pacific Paleosiberian Language'', Dr. Tashunka remarked, "The traditional division of the Minhast dialects depicts a simple phylogeny. With the exception of the Salmonic dialects, which diverged from a common dialect after the Salmon Speaker-Horse Speaker War of 1473, no additional forks extend beyond each of the two main branches: each dialect within each branch is a sibling of each other. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current classification scheme does not account for the the discrepancies of the Gull Speaker data from that of the of the other Lower Minhast dialects with which it is grouped. The Horse Speaker data show that the dialect is much more conservative than has been previously thought, in some ways more so than the Salmonic dialects. Justification for placing the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects under the Upper Minhast branch lacks supporting data; although the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects are said to be more conservative than the dialects grouped under the traditional Lower Minhast dialects, the data indicate if anything that this characterization is at best overstated. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Classical Minhast, as it shares more in common with the dialects that have been traditionally classified as Upper Minhast, is not the ancestor of the Minhast dialects, but instead is an archaic dialect that diverged from one of the sub-branches of the northern dialects. Specifically, Classical Minhast shares more features with the Salmonic and Plateau dialects than with the other dialects; extreme conservatism by the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects cannot explain why they share these features with the classical language while all the other dialects do not exhibit at any point in time in their written history that they ever had these features. Only a close relationship, within a shared dialectal grouping, could account for these discrepencies. Rather than attempting to account for both the extinct and new dialects, the traditional classification scheme conveniently ignores them. Clearly, the evidence indicates a more complex picture of the Minhast dialects, but the current system is based on biased sources ultimately derived from both Minhast literary tradition and historical regional politics: twelve pre-eminent Speakers, thus twelve dialects." <~~sup~~>1</~~sup~~> To address these issues, Dr. Tashunka has proposed a new phylogenetic tree ''(dashes indicate conjectural relationships)'':		In his seminal work, ''Minhast: A Diachronic and Theoretical Study of a North Pacific Paleosiberian Language'', Dr. Tashunka remarked, "The traditional division of the Minhast dialects depicts a simple phylogeny. With the exception of the Salmonic dialects, which diverged from a common dialect after the Salmon Speaker-Horse Speaker War of 1473, no additional forks extend beyond each of the two main branches: each dialect within each branch is a sibling of each other. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current classification scheme does not account for the the discrepancies of the Gull Speaker data from that of the of the other Lower Minhast dialects with which it is grouped. The Horse Speaker data show that the dialect is much more conservative than has been previously thought, in some ways more so than the Salmonic dialects. Justification for placing the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects under the Upper Minhast branch lacks supporting data; although the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects are said to be more conservative than the dialects grouped under the traditional Lower Minhast dialects, the data indicate if anything that this characterization is at best overstated. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Classical Minhast, as it shares more in common with the dialects that have been traditionally classified as Upper Minhast, is not the ancestor of the Minhast dialects, but instead is an archaic dialect that diverged from one of the sub-branches of the northern dialects. Specifically, Classical Minhast shares more features with the Salmonic and Plateau dialects than with the other dialects; extreme conservatism by the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects cannot explain why they share these features with the classical language while all the other dialects do not exhibit at any point in time in their written history that they ever had these features. Only a close relationship, within a shared dialectal grouping, could account for these discrepencies. Rather than attempting to account for both the extinct and new dialects, the traditional classification scheme conveniently ignores them. Clearly, the evidence indicates a more complex picture of the Minhast dialects, but the current system is based on biased sources ultimately derived from both Minhast literary tradition and historical regional politics: twelve pre-eminent Speakers, thus twelve dialects." <ref>Dr. Tashunka also notes that Minhast numerology plays an important role: the number 12 is a fortuitous number, portending good fortune. </ref> To address these issues, Dr. Tashunka has proposed a new phylogenetic tree ''(dashes indicate conjectural relationships)'':

	{{clade		{{clade
Line 365:		Line 365:
	\|label1=''Plateau''		\|label1=''Plateau''
	\|1=Horse Speakers		\|1=Horse Speakers
	\|label2=''Salmonic'' <~~sup~~>2</~~sup~~>		\|label2=''Salmonic'' <ref>We have an exact date when the Salmonic sub-branch split into the Salmon and Wolf Speaker dialects: The Salmon Speaker - Horse Speaker War of 1473</ref>
	\|2={{clade		\|2={{clade
	\|1=Salmon Speakers		\|1=Salmon Speakers
Line 372:		Line 372:
	}}		}}
	\|3={{clade		\|3={{clade
	\|1=Classical Minhast <~~sup~~>3</~~sup~~>		\|1=Classical Minhast <ref>Notice that Classical Minhast has moved from its basal position, as depicted in traditional phylogenies, to the Highland sub-branch of the Northern dialect branch. Old Minhast now occupies the basal position, making the tree consistent with the hypothesis that the Stone Speaker branch is a separate language.</ref>
	}}		}}
	}}		}}
Line 380:		Line 380:
	\|3={{clade		\|3={{clade
	\|1 = {{clade		\|1 = {{clade
	\|1=Modern Standard Minhast <~~sup~~>4</~~sup~~>		\|1=Modern Standard Minhast <ref>Modern Standard Minhast, although created as a "compromise" dialect with elements from both Upper and Lower Minhast dialects, nevertheless has a grammar that is mostly from Upper Minhast sources.</ref>
	}}		}}
	}}		}}
Line 429:		Line 429:
	\|label5=''Petric''		\|label5=''Petric''
	\|5={{clade		\|5={{clade
	\|1=Stone Speaker <~~sup~~>5</~~sup~~>		\|1=Stone Speaker <ref>Many Minhastic linguists, including Dr. Tashunka, argue that the Stone Speaker dialect should be reclassified as an independent language, based on how divergent it is from the other dialects. See discussion above.</ref>
	\|2=Knife Speaker ''(extinct)'' <sup> &Dagger;</sup> \|state2=dashed		\|2=Knife Speaker ''(extinct)'' <sup> &Dagger;</sup> \|state2=dashed
	}}		}}
Line 443:		Line 443:
	The reclassification of Classical Minhast has received especially scathing criticism from native Minhast grammarians and linguists. Dr. Tashunka proposed in another paper, "On the Position of Classical Minhast and the Modern Languages", that Classical Minhast was actually a prestige dialect spoken by another nomadic northern Minhast tribe, similar in lifestyle and social structure to today's modern Horse Speakers. He argues that this northern Minhast tribe, like the Horse Speakers, were extremely warlike and at one time may have united all of the Minhast groups under their rule, essentially forming a tribal empire. As a result, the speech of this northern tribe became a prestige dialect throughout all the Minhast groups.		The reclassification of Classical Minhast has received especially scathing criticism from native Minhast grammarians and linguists. Dr. Tashunka proposed in another paper, "On the Position of Classical Minhast and the Modern Languages", that Classical Minhast was actually a prestige dialect spoken by another nomadic northern Minhast tribe, similar in lifestyle and social structure to today's modern Horse Speakers. He argues that this northern Minhast tribe, like the Horse Speakers, were extremely warlike and at one time may have united all of the Minhast groups under their rule, essentially forming a tribal empire. As a result, the speech of this northern tribe became a prestige dialect throughout all the Minhast groups.

	There are two sources that suggest that a powerful tribe did gain political and military ascendancy in ancient Minhay. One is from the ''Anyaddaddaram'' (The Epic of Anyar), passed orally from generation to generation before finally being written down in Classical Minhast in the indigenous poetic genre known as the ''seksarambāt''. With close to 40,000 words, the epic tells of a young man named Anyar who fled the army of an invading empire and convinced all of the Minhast tribes to unite and drive away the invader. Anyar then gathers a large fleet and sets sail to attack the empire on its own soil. The poem abruptly ends, ''"Annūyikmammā tamaššuhapmakikman"'', "And they set sail in pursuit of the enemy". Another source comes from an outside nation, the Rajahnate of Kirmay. An anonymous court historian wrote ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' (The Book of the Northern Kingdom), widely regarded as an ancient treatise about the Empire of Yamato. However, various passages suggest that the kingdom in question was not Japan, as illustrated by the following passage: ''Dagiti kawes dagiti tatta'u dutdút a nalamúyut gapú ta ti ul'ulida nakalalam'ek, ket ti danúm nagbalbalin kasta ti batú. Ngem nu agawid idiay balbalayda, napudút ta isúda dutdút a nalamúyut met'', "The men wore fur because their homeland was cold, the water becoming hard as stone; but after returning home, their houses were warm, for they too were of fur"<~~sup~~>6</~~sup~~>. This passage is especially peculiar: unless the author was referring to Ainu enclaves in the island of Honshu in northern Japan, no native Japanese home is constructed out of animal hides or fur. Nevertheless, these suggestive passages in both the ''Anyaddaddaram'' and ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' are not sufficient to prove that a northern tribe speaking a dialect that would later become Classical Minhast conquered the other Minhast tribes and spread their dialect.		There are two sources that suggest that a powerful tribe did gain political and military ascendancy in ancient Minhay. One is from the ''Anyaddaddaram'' (The Epic of Anyar), passed orally from generation to generation before finally being written down in Classical Minhast in the indigenous poetic genre known as the ''seksarambāt''. With close to 40,000 words, the epic tells of a young man named Anyar who fled the army of an invading empire and convinced all of the Minhast tribes to unite and drive away the invader. Anyar then gathers a large fleet and sets sail to attack the empire on its own soil. The poem abruptly ends, ''"Annūyikmammā tamaššuhapmakikman"'', "And they set sail in pursuit of the enemy". Another source comes from an outside nation, the Rajahnate of Kirmay. An anonymous court historian wrote ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' (The Book of the Northern Kingdom), widely regarded as an ancient treatise about the Empire of Yamato. However, various passages suggest that the kingdom in question was not Japan, as illustrated by the following passage: ''Dagiti kawes dagiti tatta'u dutdút a nalamúyut gapú ta ti ul'ulida nakalalam'ek, ket ti danúm nagbalbalin kasta ti batú. Ngem nu agawid idiay balbalayda, napudút ta isúda dutdút a nalamúyut met'', "The men wore fur because their homeland was cold, the water becoming hard as stone; but after returning home, their houses were warm, for they too were of fur"<ref>Presumably the author is actually referring to animal hides with regards to the construction of the homes.</ref>. This passage is especially peculiar: unless the author was referring to Ainu enclaves in the island of Honshu in northern Japan, no native Japanese home is constructed out of animal hides or fur. Nevertheless, these suggestive passages in both the ''Anyaddaddaram'' and ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' are not sufficient to prove that a northern tribe speaking a dialect that would later become Classical Minhast conquered the other Minhast tribes and spread their dialect.

	~~== Notes ==~~
	~~<small><sup>1</sup> Dr. Tashunka also notes that Minhast numerology plays an important role: the number 12 is a fortuitous number, portending good fortune. </small>~~

	~~<small><sup>2</sup> We have an exact date when the Salmonic sub-branch split into the Salmon and Wolf Speaker dialects: The Salmon Speaker - Horse Speaker War of 1473</small>~~

	<small><sup>3</sup> Notice that Classical Minhast has moved from its basal position, as depicted in traditional phylogenies, to the Highland sub-branch of the Northern dialect branch. Old Minhast now occupies the basal position, making the tree consistent with the hypothesis that the Stone Speaker branch is a separate language.
	~~</small>~~

	<small><sup>4</sup> Modern Standard Minhast, although created as a "compromise" dialect with elements from both Upper and Lower Minhast dialects, nevertheless has a grammar that is mostly from Upper Minhast sources.</small>

	<small><sup>5</sup> Many Minhastic linguists, including Dr. Tashunka, argue that the Stone Speaker dialect should be reclassified as an independent language, based on how divergent it is from the other dialects. See discussion above.
	~~</small>~~

	~~<small><sup>6</sup> Presumably the author is actually referring to animal hides with regards to the construction of the homes.~~
	~~</small>~~

			== Footnotes ==
			{{reflist}}
	<small><sup> &Dagger;</sup>Dr. Tashunka notes, ''"Limited attestation hinders the classification of the Knife Speaker dialect. However, based on what texts we do have, we can determine which branches the Knife Speaker dialect does ''not'' belong to. The presence of Golahat words rules it out as a member of the Northern and Western Branches; the absence of ''-we-'' after application of the ''uyyi min kirim''-test rules it out as a member of the Gullic and Western branches. Dialectal mixing between the Heron Speakers and Stone Speakers is absent, but a few Stone Speaker words crop up in the Knife Speaker texts; this provides evidence that the Knife Speaker dialect should not be considered a member of the Insular Branch. This leaves only two other candidates, the Coastal and Petric groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small>		<small><sup> &Dagger;</sup>Dr. Tashunka notes, ''"Limited attestation hinders the classification of the Knife Speaker dialect. However, based on what texts we do have, we can determine which branches the Knife Speaker dialect does ''not'' belong to. The presence of Golahat words rules it out as a member of the Northern and Western Branches; the absence of ''-we-'' after application of the ''uyyi min kirim''-test rules it out as a member of the Gullic and Western branches. Dialectal mixing between the Heron Speakers and Stone Speakers is absent, but a few Stone Speaker words crop up in the Knife Speaker texts; this provides evidence that the Knife Speaker dialect should not be considered a member of the Insular Branch. This leaves only two other candidates, the Coastal and Petric groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small>

Anyar: /* "The Twelve Speakers" Classification System */

2022-02-06T03:16:18Z

"The Twelve Speakers" Classification System

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 6 February 2022
Line 170:		Line 170:
	*Development of allophone [o] from /u/ in CVCC syllables or in word-final position, e.g. ['uʃno],, ['oʃno], c.f. Common /'uʃnu/ "to hit, strike"		*Development of allophone [o] from /u/ in CVCC syllables or in word-final position, e.g. ['uʃno],, ['oʃno], c.f. Common /'uʃnu/ "to hit, strike"

	*Merger of /aw:a/ to /o/ , e.g. /'kowat/ "iron", c.f. Common /kaw:at/ "steel"		*Merger of /aw:a, a:wa/ to /o/ , e.g. /'kowat/ "iron", c.f. Common /kaw:at/ "steel"

	*Frequent dropping of ''-n'' suffix of intransitive affix ''-an'', e.g. /'aʃ:ija/ "to sit" (c.f. Common /'saʃ:ijan/)		*Frequent dropping of ''-n'' suffix of intransitive affix ''-an'', e.g. /'aʃ:ija/ "to sit" (c.f. Common /'saʃ:ijan/)

Anyar: /* The Modern Dialects */

2022-02-06T00:37:11Z

The Modern Dialects

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 6 February 2022
Line 188:		Line 188:

	=== The Modern Dialects ===		=== The Modern Dialects ===
	Two new dialects have both arisen in the National Capital Region (NCR). Modern Standard Minhast, a conglomeration of the Upper Minhast and Lower Minhast dialects, as well as Classical Minhast, serves as the standard dialect used for government, commerce, and media. Despite that more than half of its lexicon is of Lower Minhast origin, the dialect is classified as part of the Upper Minhast branch due to its grammar, which is largely drawn from the Dog Speaker dialect. The National Academy of the Minhast Language serves as the official body in creating and maintaining the standardized form of the language and biannually publishes the ''Minhastim Kirim min Suharak'' (Dictionary of the Minhast Language). In spite of its official status, the adoption of Modern Standard Minhast by the Prefectures has been limited due to resistance from the local speech communities. The second dialect, known as the City Speaker dialect (aka Modern Colloquial Minhast), is an admixture of several dialects; although most of the lexicon comes from the dialects of the Common Branch, many Stone Speaker words from the Montaigne branch have been imported. Nevertheless the grammar is ultimately derived from the Common branch. ~~Spoken mostly by people~~ in ~~their 30's and younger~~, it contains more loanwords from foreign languages than the standard language, especially in areas of technology and the Internet, and from foreign films and media. The City Speaker dialect allows CCC consonant clusters in medial syllabic positions, while only final CC clusters are allowed. Initial CC clusters are also possible for a limited set of combinations, e.g. /kw/, /kr/, /kl/, /sm/, /sn/, /šm/,/šn/, /sl/, /šl/ . This new dialect is also replete with slang, loanwords (especially from Western sources) and nonstandard jargon that is often looked down upon by ~~older generations, and~~ Speakers from the more conservative Prefectures.		Two new dialects have both arisen in the National Capital Region (NCR). Modern Standard Minhast, a conglomeration of the Upper Minhast and Lower Minhast dialects, as well as Classical Minhast, serves as the standard dialect used for government, commerce, and media. Despite that more than half of its lexicon is of Lower Minhast origin, the dialect is classified as part of the Upper Minhast branch due to its grammar, which is largely drawn from the Dog Speaker dialect. The National Academy of the Minhast Language serves as the official body in creating and maintaining the standardized form of the language and biannually publishes the ''Minhastim Kirim min Suharak'' (Dictionary of the Minhast Language). In spite of its official status, the adoption of Modern Standard Minhast by the Prefectures has been limited due to resistance from the local speech communities. The second dialect, known as the City Speaker dialect (aka Modern Colloquial Minhast), is an admixture of several dialects; although most of the lexicon comes from the dialects of the Common Branch, many Stone Speaker words from the Montaigne branch have been imported. Nevertheless the grammar is ultimately derived from the Common branch. The City Speaker dialect is centered in the official capital, Aškuan. This dialect contains more loanwords from foreign languages than the standard language, especially in areas of technology and the Internet, international sports, and from foreign films and media. The City Speaker dialect allows CCC consonant clusters in medial syllabic positions, while only final CC clusters are allowed. Initial CC clusters are also possible for a limited set of combinations, e.g. /kw/, /kr/, /kl/, /sm/, /sn/, /šm/,/šn/, /sl/, /šl/ . This new dialect is also replete with slang, loanwords (especially from Western sources) and nonstandard jargon that is often looked down upon by Speakers from the more conservative Prefectures.

	== Intelligibility ==		== Intelligibility ==